I didn't think anyone would seriously contend we would have been better off without Romo.

They dont call themselves realist for nothing....

Fact remains that this team has shown that they were able to win games without Romo. For people to say that we would only win 1-3 games with Romo being the only one injured on the team is asinine imo. I think we can all agree that while Romo is a top 10 QB, this team has too much talent to be THAT bad._________________

IMO, the only reason we won the number of games we did is because of Romo's ability to keep the play alive after the o-line melted down after every snap. If you replaced Romo with a pocket passer like Orton, this team would've won 4-5 games. It wouldn't matter if we had Calvin Johnson and Dez Bryant at WR, Witten at TE and Adrian Peterson at RB, with our o-line not giving Orton time to pass or Peterson holes to run through, we would not have won half the games we won last year.

I didn't think anyone would seriously contend we would have been better off without Romo.

They dont call themselves realist for nothing....

Fact remains that this team has shown that they were able to win games without Romo. For people to say that we would only win 1-3 games with Romo being the only one injured on the team is asinine imo. I think we can all agree that while Romo is a top 10 QB, this team has too much talent to be THAT bad.

Wait. What? Why are you suddenly ignoring all of the other injuries? The only change I am asking you to take into account is that istead of Romo being the QB - He's not._________________

In Redball I Trust!The price of progress is trusting the process.
Heart. Leadership. Passion. Will.

I didn't think anyone would seriously contend we would have been better off without Romo.

They dont call themselves realist for nothing....

Fact remains that this team has shown that they were able to win games without Romo. For people to say that we would only win 1-3 games with Romo being the only one injured on the team is asinine imo. I think we can all agree that while Romo is a top 10 QB, this team has too much talent to be THAT bad.

A team with 70% different starting roster, and closer to an 85% different game day roster with a different QB and a different schedule.

BRILLIANT! <== Sarcasm to the 1000th degree._________________

Shockey1979 wrote:

Matts going ham in General Forum

canadaluvsdalla wrote:

I hope a Canadian burgler breaks into your house and leaves a sorry note

Assuming Garrett still calls passes 90% of the time, and still has his gameclock issues, 4-5 with Orton. He's not as mobile as Romo. Given a good offensive line, and a steady running game, I think Orton would only produce a game or two less wins in a season as Romo.

I didn't think anyone would seriously contend we would have been better off without Romo.

They dont call themselves realist for nothing....

Fact remains that this team has shown that they were able to win games without Romo. For people to say that we would only win 1-3 games with Romo being the only one injured on the team is asinine imo. I think we can all agree that while Romo is a top 10 QB, this team has too much talent to be THAT bad.

Wait. What? Why are you suddenly ignoring all of the other injuries? The only change I am asking you to take into account is that istead of Romo being the QB - He's not.

Okay, I thought you meant if the entire team was healthy except for Romo.

You're right, with all of the injuries sustained last year, if Orton was the starter the Cowboys would win about 4 or 5 games_________________

3-4 max. Few quarterbacks have the ability to escape pressure better than Romo and no QB on the roster could have survived playig behind that O-line other than Romo. Anyone thinking this team would have won more than 4 games with Orton is simply fooling themselves and is minimizing how well Romo played for a large part of the season._________________Gmenseattle: "Yes Eli is the reason our season is going down the tubes."

Ironm1ke: "I am a huge Eli supporter, but his 2012 campaign was an epic turd."